(Application no /08)

Transcription

1 GRAND CHAMBER C ASE O F A L-JE DD A v. T H E UNI T E D K IN G D O M (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 July 2011

2 This judgment is final but may be subject to editorial revision.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROCEDURE... 1 THE FACTS... 2 I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE... 2 A. The applicant, his arrest and internment... 3 B. The domestic proceedings under the Human Rights Act... 4 C D. Background: the occupation of Iraq 1 May 2003 to 28 June United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) Major combat operations: 20 March-1 May Legal and political developments in May Developments between July 2003 and June The end of the occupation and subsequent developments Reports to the Security Council on the internment regime in Iraq II. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW MATERIALS A. Relevant provisions of international humanitarian law B. Relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter C. Relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties D. Relevant case-law of the International Court of Justice E. Relevant case-law of the European Court of Justice F. Relevant case-law of the United States Supreme Court G. Relevant materials of the International Law Commission H THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 1 OF THE CONVENTION... 40

4 ii AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT A. Admissibility B. The merits Jurisdiction Alleged breach of Article 5 1 of the Convention II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A. Damage B. Costs and expenses C. Default interest FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT... 64

5 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Dean Spielmann, Giovanni Bonello, Elisabeth Steiner, Lech Garlicki, L David Thór Björgvinsson, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, George Nicolaou, Luis López Guerra, Ledi Bianku, Ann Power, Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Michael O Boyle, Deputy Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 and 16 June 2010 and 15 June 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that last date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no /08) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human a joint Iraqi/British national, Mr Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda, on 3 June The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Public Interest Lawyers, solicitors based in Birmingham. The United Mr D. Walton, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3. The applicant complained that he had been detained by British troops in Iraq in breach of Article 5 1 of the Convention. 4. The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 1 of the Rules of Court). On 17 February 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 1). The parties took turns to file written observations on the

6 2 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT admissibility and merits of the case. On 19 January 2010 the Chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber. 5. The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 27 2 and 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. Judge Peer Lorenzen, President of the Fifth Section, withdrew and Judge Luis López Guerra, substitute judge, replaced him. 6. The applicants and the Government each filed a memorial on the admissibility and merits and joint third-party comments were received from 7. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 9 June 2010 (Rule 59 3). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr D. WALTON, Mr J. EADIE QC, Ms C. IVIMY, Mr S. WORDSWORTH, Ms L. DANN, Ms H. AKIWUMI, (b) for the applicants Mr RABINDER SINGH QC, Mr R. HUSAIN QC, Ms S. FATIMA, Ms N. PATEL, Mr T. TRIDIMAS, Ms H. LAW, Mr P. SHINER, Mr D. CAREY, Ms T. GREGORY, Mr J. DUFFY, Agent, Counsel, Advisers; Counsel, Advisers. The Court heard addresses by Mr Eadie and Mr Rabinder Singh. THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

7 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 3 A. The applicant, his arrest and internment 9. The applicant was born in Iraq in He played for the Iraqi basketball team until, following his refusal to join the Ba ath Party, he left Iraq in 1978 and lived in the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. He moved to the United Kingdom in 1992, where he made a claim for asylum and was granted indefinite leave to remain. He was granted British nationality in June In September 2004 the applicant and his four eldest children travelled from London to Iraq, via Dubai. He was arrested and questioned in Dubai by United Arab Emirates intelligence officers, who released him after 12 hours, permitting him and his children to continue their journey to Iraq, where they arrived on 28 September On 10 October 2004 United States soldiers, apparently acting on information provided by the British intelligence services, arrested the applicant at his sister s house in Baghdad. He was taken to Basrah in a British military aircraft and then to the Sha aibah Divisional Temporary Detention Facility in Basrah City, a detention centre run by British forces. He was held in internment there until 30 December The applicant was held on the basis that his internment was necessary for imperative reasons of security in Iraq. He was believed by the British authorities to have been personally responsible for recruiting terrorists outside Iraq with a view to the commission of atrocities there; for facilitating the travel into Iraq of an identified terrorist explosives expert; for conspiring with that explosives expert to conduct attacks with improvised explosive devices against coalition forces in the areas around Fallujah and Baghdad; and for conspiring with the explosives expert and members of an Islamist terrorist cell in the Gulf to smuggle high tech detonation equipment into Iraq for use in attacks against coalition forces. No criminal charges were brought against him. 12. The applicant s internment was initially authorised by the senior officer in the detention facility. Reviews were conducted seven days and twenty-eight days later by the Divisional Internment Review Committee. This comprised the senior officer in the detention facility and Army legal and military personnel. Owing to the sensitivity of the intelligence material upon which the applicant s arrest and detention had been based, only two members of the DIRC were permitted to examine it. Their recommendations were passed to the Commander of the Coalition s Multinational Division (South East) examined the intelligence file on the applicant and took the decision to continue the internment. Between January and July 2005 a monthly review was carried out by the Commander, on the basis of the recommendations of the DIRC. Between July 2005 and December 2007 the decision to intern was taken by the DIRC itself, which during this period included as members

8 4 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT the Commander together with members of the legal, intelligence and other staffs. There was no procedure for disclosure of evidence nor for an oral hearing, but representations could be made by the internee in writing which were considered by the legal branch and put before the DIRC for consideration. The two Commanders who authorised the applicant s internment in 2005 and 2006 gave evidence to the domestic courts that there was a substantial weight of intelligence material indicating that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant of the matters alleged against him. 13. When the applicant had been detained 18 months, the internment fell to be reviewed by the Joint Detention Committee (JDC). This body included senior representatives of the Multi-National Force, the Iraqi Interim Government and the Ambassador for the United Kingdom. It met once and thereafter delegated powers to a Joint Detention Review Committee, which comprised Iraqi representatives and officers from the Multi-National Force. 14. On 14 December 2007 the Secretary of State signed an order depriving the applicant of British citizenship, on the ground that it was conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State claimed, inter alia, that the applicant had connections with violent Islamist groups, in Iraq and elsewhere, and had been responsible for recruiting terrorists outside Iraq and facilitating their travel and the smuggling of bomb parts into Iraq. 15. The applicant was released from internment on 30 December 2007 and travelled to Turkey. He appealed against the deprivation of British citizenship. On 7 April 2009 the Special Immigration Appeals Commission dismissed the appeal, having heard both open and closed evidence, during a hearing where the applicant was represented by special advocates (see further A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, 91-93, ECHR ). The Special Immigration Appeals Commission held that, for reasons set out in detail in a closed judgment, it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Secretary of State had proved that the applicant had facilitated the travel to Iraq of a terrorist explosives expert and conspired with him to smuggle explosives into Iraq and to conduct improvised explosives device attacks against coalition forces around Fallujah and Baghdad. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment. B. The domestic proceedings under the Human Rights Act 16. On 8 June 2005 the applicant brought a judicial review claim in the United Kingdom, challenging the lawfulness of his continued detention and also the refusal of the Secretary of State for Defence to return him to the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State accepted that the applicant s detention within a British military facility brought him within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom under Article 1 of the Convention. He also accepted that the detention did not fall within any of the permitted

9 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 5 cases set out in Article 5 1. However, the Secretary of State contended that Article 5 1 did not apply to the applicant because his detention was authorised by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 (see paragraph 35 below) and that, as a matter of international law, the effect of the Resolution was to displace Article 5. He also denied that his refusal to return the applicant to the United Kingdom was unreasonable. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that Article 103 of the United Nations Charter (see paragraph 46 below) had no application since, inter alia, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 placed no obligation on the United Kingdom and/or since the United Nations Charter placed an obligation on Member States to protect human rights. 17. Both the Divisional Court in its judgment of 12 August 2005 and the Court of Appeal in its judgment of 29 March 2006 unanimously held that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 explicitly authorised the Multi-National Force to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security in Iraq, in accordance with the annexed letter from the United States Secretary of State. By the practice of the Members of the United Nations, a State which acted under such an authority was treated as having agreed to carry out the resolution for the purposes of Article 25 of the United Nations Charter and as being bound by it for the purposes of Article 103 (see paragraph 46 below). The United Kingdom s obligation under the Resolution therefore took precedence over its obligations under the Convention. The Court of Appeal also held that, under section 11 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, since the applicant was detained in Iraq, the law governing his claim for damages for false imprisonment was Iraqi law (R. (on the application of Al-Jedda) v. Secretary of State for Defence, [2005] EWHC 1809 (Admin); [2006] EWCA Civ 327) 18. The applicant appealed to the House of Lords (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood: see R. (on the application of Al-Jedda) (F C) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Defence (Respondent) [2007] UKHL 58, 12 December 2007). The Secretary of State raised a new argument before the House of Lords, claiming that by virtue of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1511 and 1546 the detention of the applicant was attributable to the United Nations and was thus outside the scope of the Convention. Lord Bingham introduced the attribution issue as follows: It was common ground between the parties that the governing principle is that expressed by the International Law Commission in article 5 of its draft articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations... He referred to the Court s reasoning in Behrami v. France; Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (dec.) [GC], nos /01 and 78166/01,

10 6 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT ECHR 2007 (henceforth: Behrami and Saramati ) and to the factual situation in Iraq at the relevant time and continued: Against the factual background described above a number of questions must be asked in the present case. Were UK forces placed at the disposal of the UN? Did the UN exercise effective control over the conduct of UK forces? Is the specific conduct of the UK forces in detaining the appellant to be attributed to the UN rather than the UK? Did the UN have effective command and control over the conduct of UK forces when they detained the appellant? Were the UK forces part of a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq? In my opinion the answer to all these questions is in the negative. 23. The UN did not dispatch the coalition forces to Iraq. The CPA was established by the coalition states, notably the US, not the UN. When the coalition states became occupying powers in Iraq they had no UN mandate. Thus when the case of Mr Mousa reached the House as one of those considered in R(Al-Skeini and others) v Secretary of State for Defence) (The Redress Trust intervening) [2007] UKHL 26, [2007] 3 WLR 33 the Secretary of State accepted that the UK was liable under the European Convention for any ill-treatment Mr Mousa suffered, while unsuccessfully denying liability under the Human Rights Act It has not, to my knowledge, been suggested that the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib was attributable to the UN rather than the US. Following UNSCR 1483 in May 2003 the role of the UN was a limited one focused on humanitarian relief and reconstruction, a role strengthened but not fundamentally altered by UNSCR 1511 in October By UNSCR 1511, and again by UNSCR 1546 in June 2004, the UN gave the multinational force express authority to take steps to promote security and stability in Iraq, but (adopting the distinction formulated by the European Court in para 43 of its judgment in Behrami and Saramati) the Security Council was not delegating its power by empowering the UK to exercise its function but was authorising the UK to carry out functions it could not perform itself. At no time did the US or the UK disclaim responsibility for the conduct of their forces or the UN accept it. It cannot realistically be said that US and UK forces were under the effective command and control of the UN, or that UK forces were under such command and control when they detained the appellant. 24. The analogy with the situation in Kosovo breaks down, in my opinion, at almost every point. The international security and civil presences in Kosovo were established at the express behest of the UN and operated under its auspices, with UNMIK a subsidiary organ of the UN. The multinational force in Iraq was not established at the behest of the UN, was not mandated to operate under UN auspices and was not a subsidiary organ of the UN. There was no delegation of UN power in Iraq. It is quite true that duties to report were imposed in Iraq as in Kosovo. But the UN s proper concern for the protection of human rights and observance of humanitarian law called for no less, and it is one thing to receive reports, another to exercise effective command and control. It does not seem to me significant that in each case the UN reserved power to revoke its authority, since it could clearly do so whether or not it reserved power to do so. 25. I would resolve this first issue in favour of the appellant and against the Baroness Hale observed in this connection:... I agree with [Lord Bingham] that the analogy with the situation in Kosovo breaks down at almost every point. The United Nations made submissions to the European Court of Human Rights in Behrami v France, Saramati v France, Germany

11 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 7 and Norway... concerning the respective roles of UNMIK and KFOR in clearing mines, which was the subject of the Behrami case. It did not deny that these were UN operations for which the UN might be responsible. It seems to me unlikely in the extreme that the United Nations would accept that the acts of the [Multi-National Force] were in any way attributable to the UN. My noble and learned friend, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has put his finger on the essential distinction. The UN s own role in Iraq was completely different from its role in Kosovo. Its concern in Iraq was for the protection of human rights and the observance of humanitarian law as well to protect its own humanitarian operations there. It looked to others to restore the peace and security which had broken down in the aftermath of events for which those Lord Carswell similarly agreed with Lord Bingham on this issue ( 131). Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood also distinguished the situation in Kosovo from that in Iraq, as follows: 145. To my mind it follows that any material distinction between the two cases must be found... in the very circumstances in which the [Multi-National Force] came to be authorised and mandated in the first place. The delegation to KFOR of the UN s function of maintaining security was, the court observed [in Behrami and Saramati], neither presumed nor implicit but rather prior and explicit in the resolution itself. Resolution 1244 decided (para 5) on the deployment in Kosovo, under United Nations auspices, of international civil and security presences - the civil presence being UNMIK, recognised by the court in Behrami (para 142) as a subsidiary organ of the UN ; the security presence being KFOR. KFOR was, therefore, expressly formed under UN auspices. Para 7 of the resolution [a]uthorise[d] member states and relevant international organisations to establish the international security presence in Kosovo as set out in point 4 of Annex Point 4 of Annex 2 stated: The international security presence with substantial NATO participation must be deployed under unified command and control and authorised to establish a safe environment for all people in Kosovo and to facilitate the safe return to their homes of all displaced persons and refugees Resolution 1511, by contrast, was adopted on 16 October 2003 during the USA s and UK s post-combat occupation of Iraq and in effect gave recognition to those occupying forces as an existing security presence Nor did the position change when resolution 1546 was adopted on 8 June 2004, three weeks before the end of the occupation and the transfer of authority from the CPA to the interim government of Iraq on 28 June Nothing either in the resolution [1546] itself or in the letters annexed suggested for a moment that the [Multi-National Force] had been under or was now being transferred to United Nations authority and control. True, the [Security Council] was acting throughout under Chapter VII of the Charter. But it does not follow that the UN is therefore to be regarded as having assumed ultimate authority or control over the force. The precise meaning of the term ultimate authority and control I have found somewhat elusive. But it cannot automatically vest or remain in the UN every time there is an authorisation of UN powers under Chapter VII, else much of the analysis in Behrami would be mere surplusage. 19. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry dissented on this point. He found that the legal basis on which the members of KFOR were operating in Kosovo could not be distinguished from that on which British forces in the Multi-National

12 8 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT Force were operating during the period of the applicant s internment. He explained his views as follows: There is an obvious difference between the factual position in Kosovo that lay behind the Behrami case and the factual position in Iraq that lies behind the present case. The forces making up KFOR went into Kosovo, for the first time, as members of KFOR and in terms of Security Council Resolution By contrast, the Coalition forces were in Iraq and, indeed, in occupation of Iraq, for about six months before the Security Council adopted Resolution 1511, authorising the creation of the [Multi-National Force], on 16 October It respectfully appears to me that the mere fact that Resolution 1244 was adopted before the forces making up KFOR entered Kosovo was legally irrelevant to the issue in Behrami. What mattered was that Resolution 1244 had been adopted before the French members of KFOR detained Mr Saramati. So the Resolution regulated the legal position at the time of his detention. Equally, in the present case, the fact that the British and other Coalition forces were in Iraq long before Resolution 1546 was adopted is legally irrelevant for present purposes. What matters is that Resolution 1546 was adopted before the British forces detained the appellant and so it regulated the legal position at that time. As renewed, the provisions of that Resolution have continued to do so ever since If one compares the terms of Resolution 1244 and Resolution 1511, for present purposes there appears to be no relevant legal difference between the two forces. Of course, in the case of Kosovo, there was no civil administration and there were no bodies of troops already assembled in Kosovo whom the Security Council could authorise to assume the necessary responsibilities. In paragraph 5 of Resolution 1244 the Security Council accordingly decided on the deployment in Kosovo, under United Nations auspices, of international civil and security presences. Because there were no suitable troops on the ground, in paragraph 7 of Resolution 1244 the Council had actually to authorise the establishing of the international security presence and then to authorise it to carry out various responsibilities. 88. By contrast, in October 2003, in Iraq there were already forces in place, especially American and British forces, whom the Security Council could authorise to assume the necessary responsibilities. So it did not need to authorise the establishment of the [Multi-National Force]. In paragraph 13 the Council simply authorised a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq - thereby proceeding on the basis that there would indeed be a multinational force under unified command. In paragraph 14 the Council urged member states to contribute forces to the [Multi-National Force]. Absolutely crucially, however, in paragraph 13 it spelled out the mandate which it was giving to the [Multi-National Force]. By authorising the [Multi-National Force] to take the measures required to fulfil its mandate, the Council was asserting and exercising control over the [Multi-National Force] and was prescribing the mission that it was to carry out. The authorisation and mandate were to apply to all members of the [Multi-National Force] - the British and American, of course, but also those from member states who responded to the Council s call to contribute forces to the [Multi-National Force]. The intention must have been that all would be in the same legal position. This confirms that - as I have already held, at paragraph 61 the fact that the British forces were in Iraq before Resolution 1511 was

13 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 9 adopted is irrelevant to their legal position under that Resolution and, indeed, under Resolution The second issue before the House of Lords was whether the provisions of Article 5 1 of the Convention were qualified by the legal regime established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 and subsequent resolutions. On this point, the House of Lords unanimously held that Article 103 of the United Nations Charter gave primacy to resolutions of the Security Council, even in relation to human rights agreements. Lord Bingham, with whom the other Law Lords agreed, explained:... while the Secretary of State contends that the Charter, and UNSCRs 1511 (2003), 1546 (2004), 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006), impose an obligation on the UK to detain the appellant which prevails over the appellant s conflicting right under article 5(1) of the European Convention, the appellant insists that the UNSCRs referred to, read in the light of the Charter, at most authorise the UK to take action to detain him but do not oblige it to do so, with the result that no conflict arises and article 103 is not engaged. 31. There is an obvious attraction in the appellant s argument since, as appears from the summaries of UNSCRs 1511 and 1546 given above in paras 12 and 15, the resolutions use the language of authorisation, not obligation, and the same usage is found in UNSCRs 1637 (2005) and 1723 (2006). In ordinary speech to authorise is to permit or allow or license, not to require or oblige. I am, however, persuaded that the appellant s argument is not sound, for three main reasons. 32. First, it appears to me that during the period when the UK was an occupying power (from the cessation of hostilities on 1 May 2003 to the transfer of power to the Iraqi Interim Government on 28 June 2004) it was obliged, in the area which it effectively occupied, to take necessary measures to protect the safety of the public and its own safety. [Lord Bingham here referred to Article 43 of the Hague Regulations and Articles 41, 42 and 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: see paragraphs below.] These three articles are designed to circumscribe the sanctions which may be applied to protected persons, and they have no direct application to the appellant, who is not a protected person. But they show plainly that there is a power to intern persons who are not protected persons, and it would seem to me that if the occupying power considers it necessary to detain a person who is judged to be a serious threat to the safety of the public or the occupying power there must be an obligation to detain such a person: see the decision of the International Court of Justice in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep 116, paragraph 178. This is a matter of some importance, since although the appellant was not detained during the period of the occupation, both the evidence and the language of UNSCR 1546 (2004) and the later resolutions strongly suggest that the intention was to continue the pre-existing security regime and not to change it. There is not said to have been such an improvement in local security conditions as would have justified any relaxation. 33. There are, secondly, some situations in which the Security Council can adopt resolutions couched in mandatory terms. One example is UNSCR 820 (1993),

14 10 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT considered by the European Court (with reference to an EC regulation giving effect to it) in Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland (2005) 42 EHRR 1, which decided in paragraph 24 that all states shall impound all vessels, freight vehicles, rolling stock and aircraft in their territories.... Such provisions cause no difficulty in principle, since member states can comply with them within their own borders and are bound by article 25 of the UN Charter to comply. But language of this kind cannot be used in relation to military or security operations overseas, since the UN and the Security Council have no standing forces at their own disposal and have concluded no agreements under article 43 of the Charter which entitle them to call on member states to provide them. Thus in practice the Security Council can do little more than give its authorisation to member states which are willing to conduct such tasks, and this is what (as I understand) it has done for some years past. Even in UNSCR 1244 (1999) relating to Kosovo, when (as I have concluded) the operations were very clearly conducted under UN auspices, the language of authorisation was used. There is, however, a strong and to my mind persuasive body of academic opinion which would treat article 103 as applicable where conduct is authorised by the Security Council as where it is required: see, for example, Goodrich, Hambro and Simons (eds), Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents, 3rd ed (1969), pp ; Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1979), Vol II, Part One, para 14; Sarooshi, The United Nations and the Development of Collective Security (1999), pp The most recent and perhaps clearest opinion on the subject is that of Frowein and Krisch in Simma (ed), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed (2002), p 729: Such authorizations, however, create difficulties with respect to article 103. According to the latter provision, the Charter-and thus also SC resolutions-override existing international law only insofar as they create obligations (cf. Bernhardt on article 103 MN 27 et seq.). One could conclude that in case a state is not obliged but merely authorized to take action, it remains bound by its conventional obligations. Such a result, however, would not seem to correspond with state practice at least as regards authorizations of military action. These authorizations have not been opposed on the ground of conflicting treaty obligations, and if they could be opposed on this basis, the very idea of authorizations as a necessary substitute for direct action by the SC would be compromised. Thus, the interpretation of article 103 should be reconciled with that of article 42, and the prevalence over treaty obligations should be recognized for the authorization of military action as well (see Frowein/Krisch on article 42 MN 28). The same conclusion seems warranted with respect to authorizations of economic measures under article 41. Otherwise, the Charter would not reach its goal of allowing the SC to take the action it deems most appropriate to deal with threats to the peace-it would force the SC to act either by way of binding measures or by way of recommendations, but would not permit intermediate forms of action. This would deprive the SC of much of the flexibility it is supposed to enjoy. It seems therefore preferable to apply the rule of article 103 to all action under articles 41 and 42 and not only to mandatory measures. This approach seems to me to give a purposive interpretation to article 103 of the Charter, in the context of its other provisions, and to reflect the practice of the UN and member states as it has developed over the past 60 years.

15 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT I am further of the opinion, thirdly, that in a situation such as the present obligations in article 103 should not in any event be given a narrow, contract-based, meaning. The importance of maintaining peace and security in the world can scarcely be exaggerated, and that (as evident from the articles of the Charter quoted above) is the mission of the UN. Its involvement in Iraq was directed to that end, following repeated determinations that the situation in Iraq continued to constitute a threat to international peace and security. As is well known, a large majority of states chose not to contribute to the multinational force, but those which did (including the UK) became bound by articles 2 and 25 to carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter so as to achieve its lawful objectives. It is of course true that the UK did not become specifically bound to detain the appellant in particular. But it was, I think, bound to exercise its power of detention where this was necessary for imperative reasons of security. It could not be said to be giving effect to the decisions of the Security Council if, in such a situation, it neglected to take steps which were open to it. 35. Emphasis has often been laid on the special character of the European Convention as a human rights instrument. But the reference in article 103 to any other international agreement leaves no room for any excepted category, and such appears to be the consensus of learned opinion. The decision of the International Court of Justice (Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United Kingdom) [1992] ICJ Rep 3, para 39 and Application of the Convention on the Prevention and punishment of the Crime of Genocide [1993] ICJ Rep 325, , paras per Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht) give no warrant for drawing any distinction save where an obligation is jus cogens and according to Judge Bernhardt it now seems to be generally recognised in practice that binding Security Council decisions taken under Chapter VII supersede all other treaty commitments (The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 2nd ed, ed Simma, pp ) Lord Bingham concluded on this issue: Thus there is a clash between on the one hand a power or duty to detain exercisable on the express authority of the Security Council and, on the other, a fundamental human right which the UK has undertaken to secure to those (like the appellant) within its jurisdiction. How are these to be reconciled? There is in my opinion only one way in which they can be reconciled: by ruling that the UK may lawfully, where it is necessary for imperative reasons of security, exercise the power to detain authorised by UNSCR 1546 and successive resolutions, but must ensure that the detainee s rights under article 5 are not infringed to any greater extent than is inherent in such detention. I would resolve the second issue in th 21. Baroness Hale commenced by observing: There is no doubt that prolonged detention in the hands of the military is not permitted by the laws of the United Kingdom. Nor could it be permitted without derogation from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5(1) of the Convention provides that deprivation of liberty is only lawful in defined circumstances which do not include these. The drafters of the Convention had a choice between a general prohibition of arbitrary detention, as provided in article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a list of permitted grounds for detention. They deliberately chose the latter. They were well aware of Churchill s view that the internment even of enemy aliens in war time was in the highest degree

16 12 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT odious. They would not have contemplated the indefinite detention without trial of British citizens in peace time. I do not accept that this is less of a problem if people are suspected of very grave crimes. The graver the crime of which a person is suspected, the more difficult it will be for him to secure his release on the grounds that he is not a risk. The longer therefore he is likely to be incarcerated and the less substantial the evidence which will be relied upon to prove suspicion. These are the people most in need of the protection of the rule of law, rather than the small fry in whom the authorities will soon lose interest. Baroness Hale agreed with Lord Bingham that the Convention rights That is, however, as far as I would go. The right is qualified but not displaced. This is an important distinction, insufficiently explored in the all or nothing arguments with which we were presented. We can go no further than the UN has implicitly required us to go in restoring peace and security to a troubled land. The right is qualified only to the extent required or authorised by the resolution. What remains of it thereafter must be observed. This may have both substantive and procedural consequences It is not clear to me how far UNSC resolution 1546 went when it authorised the [Multi-National Force] to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks (para 10). The broad range of tasks were listed by Secretary of State Powell as including combat operations against members of these groups [seeking to influence Iraq s political future through violence], internment where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security, and the continued search for and securing of weapons that threaten Iraq s security. At the same time, the Secretary of State made clear the commitment of the forces which made up the MNF to act consistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions On what basis is it said that the detention of this particular appellant is consistent with our obligations under the law of armed conflict? He is not a protected person under the fourth Geneva Convention because he is one of our own citizens. Nor is the UK any longer in belligerent occupation of any part of Iraq. So resort must be had to some sort of post conflict, post occupation, analogous power to intern anyone where this is thought necessary for imperative reasons of security. Even if the UNSC resolution can be read in this way, it is not immediately obvious why the prolonged detention of this person in Iraq is necessary, given that any problem he presents in Iraq could be solved by repatriating him to this country and dealing with him here. If we stand back a little from the particular circumstances of this case, this is the response which is so often urged when British people are in trouble with the law in foreign countries, and in this case it is within the power of the British authorities to achieve it But that is not the way in which the argument has been conducted before us. Why else could Lord Bingham and Lord Brown speak of displacing or qualifying in one breath when clearly they mean very different things? We have been concerned at a more abstract level with attribution to or authorisation by the United Nations. We have devoted little attention to the precise scope of the authorisation. There must still

17 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 13 be room for argument about what precisely is covered by the resolution and whether it applies on the facts of this case. Quite how that is to be done remains for decision in the other proceedings. With that caveat, therefore, but otherwise in agreement with 22. Lord Carswell started his speech by observing: 130. Internment without trial is so antithetical to the rule of law as understood in a democratic society that recourse to it requires to be carefully scrutinised by the courts of that society. There are, regrettably, circumstances in which the threat to the necessary stability of the state is so great that in order to maintain that stability the use of internment is unavoidable. The Secretary of State s contention is that such circumstances exist now in Iraq and have existed there since the conclusion of hostilities in If the intelligence concerning the danger posed by such persons is correct, - as to which your Lordships are not in a position to make any judgment and do not do so - they pose a real danger to stability and progress in Iraq. If sufficient evidence cannot be produced in criminal proceedings - which again the House has not been asked to and cannot judge - such persons may have to be detained without trial. Article 42 of the 4th Geneva Convention permits the ordering of internment of protected persons only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary, and under article 78 the Occupying Power must consider that step necessary for imperative reasons of security. Neither of these provisions applies directly to the appellant, who is not a protected person, but the degree of necessity which should exist before the Secretary of State detains persons in his position - if he has power to do so, as in my opinion he has - is substantially the same. I would only express the opinion that where a state can lawfully intern people, it is important that it adopt certain safeguards: the compilation of intelligence about such persons which is as accurate and reliable as possible, the regular review of the continuing need to detain each person and a system whereby that need and the underlying evidence can be checked and challenged by representatives on behalf of the detained persons, so far as is practicable and consistent with the needs of national security and the safety of other persons. He continued: It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the Resolution did not go further than authorising the measures described in it, as distinct from imposing an obligation to carry them out, with the consequence that article 103 of the Charter did not apply to relieve the United Kingdom from observing the terms of article 5(1) of the Convention. This was an attractive and persuasively presented argument, but I am satisfied that it cannot succeed. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 32 to 39 of Lord Bingham s opinion I consider that Resolution 1546 did operate to impose an obligation upon the United Kingdom to carry out those measures. In particular, I am persuaded by State practice and the clear statements of authoritative academic opinion - recognised sources of international law - that expressions in Security Council Resolutions which appear on their face to confer no more than authority or power to carry out measures may take effect as imposing obligations, because of the fact that the United Nations have no standing forces at their own disposal and have concluded no agreements under article 43 of the Charter which would entitle them to call on member states to provide them I accordingly am of opinion that the United Kingdom may lawfully, where it is necessary for imperative reasons of security, exercise the power to intern conferred by Resolution I would emphasise, however, that that power has to be exercised in

18 14 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT such a way as to minimise the infringements of the detainee s rights under article 5(1) of the Convention, in particular by adopting and operating to the fullest practicable C. The applicant s claim for damages under Iraqi law 23. Following the Court of Appeal s ruling on the applicable legal regime (see paragraph 17 above), which was upheld by the House of Lords, the applicant brought a claim for damages in the English courts claiming that, from 19 May 2006 onwards, his detention without judicial review was unlawful under the terms of the Iraqi Constitution, which came into force on that date (see paragraph 38 below). 24. This claim was finally determined by the Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 8 July 2010 ([2010] EWCA Civ 758). The majority found that, in the circumstances, the review procedure under Coalition Provisional Authority Memorandum No. 3 (Revised) (see paragraph 36 below) provided sufficient guarantees of fairness and independence to comply with Iraqi law. D. Background: the occupation of Iraq 1 May 2003 to 28 June United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) 25. On 8 November 2002 the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, adopted Resolution The Resolution decided, inter alia, that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its obligations under previous United Nations Security Council Resolutions to disarm and to cooperate with United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency weapons inspectors. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 decided to afford Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations and set up an enhanced inspection regime. It requested the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of the resolution and demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with the inspectors. Resolution 1441 concluded by recalling that the United Nations Security Council had curity Council decided to remain seized of the matter. 2. Major combat operations: 20 March-1 May On 20 March 2003 a coalition of armed forces under unified command, led by the United States of America with a large force from the United Kingdom and small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland, commenced the invasion of Iraq. By 5 April 2003 the British had

19 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 15 captured Basrah and by 9 April 2003 United States troops had gained control of Baghdad. Major combat operations in Iraq were declared complete on 1 May Thereafter, other States sent troops to help with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. 3. Legal and political developments in May On 8 May 2003 the Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States at the United Nations addressed a joint letter to the President of the United Nations Security Council, which read as follows: Ireland and Coalition partners continue to act together to ensure the complete disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. The States participating in the Coalition will strictly abide by their obligations under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq.... In order to meet these objectives and obligations in the post-conflict period in Iraq, the United States, the United Kingdom and Coalition partners, acting under existing command and control arrangements through the Commander of Coalition Forces, have created the Coalition Provisional Authority, which includes the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, to exercise powers of government temporarily, and, as necessary, especially to provide security, to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid, and to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The United States, the United Kingdom and Coalition partners, working through the Coalition Provisional Authority, shall inter alia, provide for security in and for the provisional administration of Iraq, including by: deterring hostilities;... maintaining civil law and order, including through encouraging international efforts to rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi civilian police force; eliminating all terrorist infrastructure and resources within Iraq and working to ensure that terrorists and terrorist groups are denied safe haven;... and assuming immediate control of Iraqi institutions responsible for military and security matters and providing, as appropriate, for the demilitarization, demobilization, control, command, reformation, disestablishment, or reorganization of those institutions so that they no longer pose a threat to the Iraqi people or international peace and security but will be capable of defending Iraq s sovereignty and territorial integrity.... The United Nations has a vital role to play in providing humanitarian relief, in supporting the reconstruction of Iraq, and in helping in the formation of an Iraqi interim authority. The United States, the United Kingdom and Coalition partners are ready to work closely with representatives of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and look forward to the appointment of a special coordinator by the Secretary-General. We also welcome the support and contributions of Member States, international and regional organizations, and other entities, under appropriate coordination arrangements with the Coalition Provisional Authority.

20 16 AL-JEDDA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT We would be grateful if you could arrange for the present letter to be circulated as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Jeremy Greenstock Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom (Signed) John D. Negroponte 28. As mentioned in the above letter, the occupying States, acting through the Commander of Coalition Forces, created the Coalition government could be established. It had power, inter alia, to issue legislation. On 13 May 2003 the United States Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, issued a memorandum formally appointing Ambassador Paul Bremer as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority with responsibility for the temporary governance of Iraq. In CPA Regulation No. 1, dated 16 May 2003, Ambassador Bremer provided inter alia that the Coalition Provisional Authority shall exercise powers of government temporarily in order to provide for the effective administration of Iraq during the period of transitional administration The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative and judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws and usages of war. This authority shall be exercised by the CPA Administrator. 3) As the Commander of Coalition Forces, the Commander of U.S. Central Command shall directly support the CPA by deterring hostilities; maintaining Iraq s territorial integrity and security; searching for, securing and destroying weapons of mass destruction; and assisting in carrying out Coalition policy generally. The Coalition Provisional Authority administration was divided into regional areas. CPA South was placed under United Kingdom responsibility and control, with a United Kingdom Regional Coordinator. It covered the southernmost four of Iraq s eighteen provinces, each having a governorate coordinator. United Kingdom troops were deployed in the same area. 29. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 referred to by Ambassador Bremer in CPA Regulation No. 1 was actually adopted six days later, on 22 May It provided as follows: The Security Council, Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions,... Resolved that the United Nations should play a vital role in humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq, and the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance,